I am a senior History major at The George Washington University. I have experience in video and photo editing but am looking to expand my skills. Also art is fun so...yay!
First project is on Presence/Absence. I took images I had taken and experimented by taking out certain parts of the image and seeing how it affected the photo and the meaning, if there was any change. These first five images all have something missing, whether its a a small detail, or the center focus of the photo, the missing parts makes one think about the importance of what is present in a photo, but also what is absent from it.
These next photos are a project in mediating two pictures together with a third image. I look at themes such as the past with the present as well as the old with the new.
Response to Article:
Lev Manovich wrote an article about the changes in graphics and how that effected the visual/media industry. He starts off by stating how the visual media and computerization were starting to come together. He mentions Andreas Huyssen's quote that describes how we are now at a point where we can recall a whole history of art and progress on one platform (the computer) and we can use those images with each other to make a new dialogue. Manovich starts his anaylsis by explaining that everything is pretty much a hybrid of computer generated graphics and visual media created by people. He says that narrative works have mostly remained free from this hybridization but I would have to disagree. This might be because he wrote this article 8 years ago and so many more narrative features are using graphics to help tell their story. If anything I think this speaks to the movement and mass growth of technology and the industry. It almost makes Huyssen's, and Manovich's, point.
However Manovich then goes on to talk about how in the early 1990s, to produce a computer generated commercial, one had to spend a lot of money and time to produce content, that was usually one form (3D, typography, etc.) but now with all the software that is available, and most importantly cheap, can be access anywhere AND can implement a lot of different types of graphics and technology. What Manovich is saying is that what used to make one particular software type unique, is no longer unique, because you can have all these different types of images together. Manovich calls this "Media Remixability" which is a pretty good name if you ask me.
Manovich then talks about how the change in our software meant that we look at images a different way. No longer are we subject to using the image as they were taken...now we can change almost everything about them from their exposure and coloring to the transparency, making for a much more dynamic image. And this was all helped along because we are now finally able to store multiple types of files and images, as Manovich says, "computerized memory banks." Had the software to store all these new images not been created, then this article would be moot because you can't save anything. I think it's interesting and poignant how Manovich makes this point.
Overall media remixability has changed how an audience can relate to the art it's watching or listening too. By juxtaposing two kinds of image, while animating them and putting it too music, you can create a whole different kind of experience. It allows for subtley, which is so important in art and in storytelling because it allows the audience to immerse themselves fully. Being able to put al these forces together was almost unheard of 20 years ago. Now it is commonplace. It makes me wonder what will happen in the next 20 years and if it will be a similar jump or if something completely new will come along.
Augmented Reality Response
Information and space are constantly working with each other. A space can provide information and information can also inform a space, creating a dynamic working relationship that creates a reality for a human or whatever is experiencing said reality. If we were to wholly give the term ‘information’ a digital slant (i.e. digital information as opposed to written or verbal communication) these two things become separate when they no longer share the same realities. What I mean by this is, if one space were to be void of any digital information, they would be separate. But, as one would be well aware by this day in age, digital information is almost everywhere and is used by everyone at least once per day. Most use email or listen to music, and to make Augmented Reality an even more abstract concept, there are digital spaces that fill our streets, making those who are not even electing to participate in the augmented reality or space, a part of it. So unless one chooses to wholly elect from a space that has any kind of augmentation (i.e. in the original space) then the two would be separate. And to finally answer your question, if a space is wholly devoid of any augmentation, it is not an augmented space. One needs to have that change in the original. But it is hardly ever the case for one to be in a situation that is wholly devoid of any change or enhancement, whether that enhancement or addition is digital or not (unless one were to live their lives in nature, never appearing on the grid).
The other part of your question asked whether we would perceive the different layers of an augmented reality or if we would perceive the layers as a whole. And the answer is, both. When we view an augmented reality, one can perceive the whole or the layers, depending on how the different layers work together. In fact I would suggest that one looks at the whole thing as well as the layers to determine all the different meanings the augmented reality can take. If we were to just view one or the other, the reality would be incomplete or lacking a side to the story. Each layer brings a new meaning to the original. So when looking at something that has been augmented, or if you are participating in an augmented reality, than it is important to identify all the layers that are present. Perhaps each of them exists for a different reason. But it is also just as important to look at the reality as a whole. Augmented realities grow and shift depending on the space and the additions that are added to it. But if we are to fully connect with or participate in the Augmented reality, we have to look at the reality as a whole. Each of the layers work together to create an entirely new meaning that had not existed before, giving a new meaning not only to the original but to the different layers as well. As they work together, they create their own meaning while adding to the original.
Finally you asked when do they join together. Augmented realities join together as soon as they are connected. The new reality is made when all the layers are in place together and working together to make a new image. Though we can separate them as we view and think about the reality, we cannot ignore the new meaning that began as soon as the reality was made.
Wholly I believe I mostly understood the basic concepts of Augmented Reality, but I am having a hard time processing how augmented realities work across spaces that are not tangible, such as streets or within the Internet and digital information. I believe that augmented realities come from when we add something to an original concept, but again, I don't know if those addition have to be digital or not.
I am a senior History major at The George Washington University. I have experience in video and photo editing but am looking to expand my skills. Also art is fun so...yay!
First project is on Presence/Absence. I took images I had taken and experimented by taking out certain parts of the image and seeing how it affected the photo and the meaning, if there was any change. These first five images all have something missing, whether its a a small detail, or the center focus of the photo, the missing parts makes one think about the importance of what is present in a photo, but also what is absent from it.
These next photos are a project in mediating two pictures together with a third image. I look at themes such as the past with the present as well as the old with the new.
Response to Article:
Lev Manovich wrote an article about the changes in graphics and how that effected the visual/media industry. He starts off by stating how the visual media and computerization were starting to come together. He mentions Andreas Huyssen's quote that describes how we are now at a point where we can recall a whole history of art and progress on one platform (the computer) and we can use those images with each other to make a new dialogue. Manovich starts his anaylsis by explaining that everything is pretty much a hybrid of computer generated graphics and visual media created by people. He says that narrative works have mostly remained free from this hybridization but I would have to disagree. This might be because he wrote this article 8 years ago and so many more narrative features are using graphics to help tell their story. If anything I think this speaks to the movement and mass growth of technology and the industry. It almost makes Huyssen's, and Manovich's, point.
However Manovich then goes on to talk about how in the early 1990s, to produce a computer generated commercial, one had to spend a lot of money and time to produce content, that was usually one form (3D, typography, etc.) but now with all the software that is available, and most importantly cheap, can be access anywhere AND can implement a lot of different types of graphics and technology. What Manovich is saying is that what used to make one particular software type unique, is no longer unique, because you can have all these different types of images together. Manovich calls this "Media Remixability" which is a pretty good name if you ask me.
Manovich then talks about how the change in our software meant that we look at images a different way. No longer are we subject to using the image as they were taken...now we can change almost everything about them from their exposure and coloring to the transparency, making for a much more dynamic image. And this was all helped along because we are now finally able to store multiple types of files and images, as Manovich says, "computerized memory banks." Had the software to store all these new images not been created, then this article would be moot because you can't save anything. I think it's interesting and poignant how Manovich makes this point.
Overall media remixability has changed how an audience can relate to the art it's watching or listening too. By juxtaposing two kinds of image, while animating them and putting it too music, you can create a whole different kind of experience. It allows for subtley, which is so important in art and in storytelling because it allows the audience to immerse themselves fully. Being able to put al these forces together was almost unheard of 20 years ago. Now it is commonplace. It makes me wonder what will happen in the next 20 years and if it will be a similar jump or if something completely new will come along.
Augmented Reality Response
Information and space are constantly working with each other. A space can provide information and information can also inform a space, creating a dynamic working relationship that creates a reality for a human or whatever is experiencing said reality. If we were to wholly give the term ‘information’ a digital slant (i.e. digital information as opposed to written or verbal communication) these two things become separate when they no longer share the same realities. What I mean by this is, if one space were to be void of any digital information, they would be separate. But, as one would be well aware by this day in age, digital information is almost everywhere and is used by everyone at least once per day. Most use email or listen to music, and to make Augmented Reality an even more abstract concept, there are digital spaces that fill our streets, making those who are not even electing to participate in the augmented reality or space, a part of it. So unless one chooses to wholly elect from a space that has any kind of augmentation (i.e. in the original space) then the two would be separate. And to finally answer your question, if a space is wholly devoid of any augmentation, it is not an augmented space. One needs to have that change in the original. But it is hardly ever the case for one to be in a situation that is wholly devoid of any change or enhancement, whether that enhancement or addition is digital or not (unless one were to live their lives in nature, never appearing on the grid).
The other part of your question asked whether we would perceive the different layers of an augmented reality or if we would perceive the layers as a whole. And the answer is, both. When we view an augmented reality, one can perceive the whole or the layers, depending on how the different layers work together. In fact I would suggest that one looks at the whole thing as well as the layers to determine all the different meanings the augmented reality can take. If we were to just view one or the other, the reality would be incomplete or lacking a side to the story. Each layer brings a new meaning to the original. So when looking at something that has been augmented, or if you are participating in an augmented reality, than it is important to identify all the layers that are present. Perhaps each of them exists for a different reason. But it is also just as important to look at the reality as a whole. Augmented realities grow and shift depending on the space and the additions that are added to it. But if we are to fully connect with or participate in the Augmented reality, we have to look at the reality as a whole. Each of the layers work together to create an entirely new meaning that had not existed before, giving a new meaning not only to the original but to the different layers as well. As they work together, they create their own meaning while adding to the original.
Finally you asked when do they join together. Augmented realities join together as soon as they are connected. The new reality is made when all the layers are in place together and working together to make a new image. Though we can separate them as we view and think about the reality, we cannot ignore the new meaning that began as soon as the reality was made.
Wholly I believe I mostly understood the basic concepts of Augmented Reality, but I am having a hard time processing how augmented realities work across spaces that are not tangible, such as streets or within the Internet and digital information. I believe that augmented realities come from when we add something to an original concept, but again, I don't know if those addition have to be digital or not.